FortFi Treasury MCP

propose_create_account

Create a new wallet on a supported chain. Optional metadata tags (e.g. customer_id). Then call confirm_proposal with the returned proposalId. Agent accounts execute server-side when no cosigners are configured.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "chainId": "<chainId>",
      "walletName": "<walletName>"
    },
    "name": "propose_create_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chainId`	Yes	FortFi chain id, e.g. base-mainnet, robinhood-mainnet, solana-mainnet
`metadata`	No	Optional flat string tags (max 20 keys), e.g. { "customer_id": "cust_123" }
`walletName`	Yes	Display name for the new wallet (2–64 chars)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add valuable non-obvious behavior: creation is a proposal that must be confirmed, and agent accounts execute server-side when no cosigners are configured. It omits permissions required, proposal expiry, whether walletName must be unique, and what happens on failure or duplicate requests.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the required next step. Nothing is padded, though the phrasing is terse enough that the cosigner clause could be mistaken for an unrelated aside.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the two-step workflow and the cosigner nuance. It leaves gaps on authorization requirements, proposal lifecycle, and what the proposal object contains beyond proposalId, which matters because there is no output schema to fall back on.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including chain id examples, the 2–64 character name constraint, and the 20-key flat-string metadata rule, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates metadata tags and the chain constraint without adding format or validation detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new wallet') and adds a scope note about supported chains, which is clearer than the tool name's opaque 'propose_*' prefix. It also names the follow-up tool, so an agent understands this is a two-step proposal flow rather than an immediate creation. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with sibling account tools such as propose_rename_account or list_wallets.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear routing guidance: call this, then call confirm_proposal with the returned proposalId. It also flags the conditional behavior for agent accounts without cosigners. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or mention of prerequisites such as permissions or plan limits.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All FortFi Treasury MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?